GUILTY UK - Sadie Hartley, 60, murdered, Helmshore, Lancs, 14 Jan 2016 #1

[Tortoise]

This article gives a bit more detail to the exchange of texts that we heard about today, between IanJ and Williams.

Johnston said: 'You knew that I was seeing Sadie when this all started. What did you expect? I can't just have you presented as someone new when everyone knows Sadie. It's not about you. It's about me. Sorry.'

In a long ranting reply, Williams replied that she 'must be very stupid' because she is struggling to 'grasp' that she won't get 'the relationship or love that I need no matter how hard I try'.

She wrote: 'I shouldn't be feeling like this and sobbing my heart out over you. You don't want me and probably never will. I'm sorry for caring for you, I'm sorry for caring about you, I'm sorry for bothering you. I'm sorry I fell in love with you.'

The pair then argued about how William's older boyfriend, David Hardwick, 75, 'finances' her lifestyle – to which she told him that she doesn't have sex with him for money, she just wants Mr Johnston.

But he refused to break up with Mrs Hartley and wrote that he was not simply going to 'blow her out'.

He replied: 'You are persistent but you don't want to listen to me. I've told you that I'm in a relationship with Sadie. You knew that before this started.



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ival-wrote-went-buy-stun-gun-used-attack.html

This was posted right at the beginning of the trial. Referring to it because that line in bold shows her style of manipulation. It appears to be 'nice' but it is all for garnering sympathy and getting her way.

 

[faybradshaw]

Antisocial Personality Disorder - Sociopath.

"Antisocial personality disorder is defined by a pervasive and persistent disregard for morals, social norms, and the rights and feelings of others. Individuals with this personality disorder will typically have no compunction in exploiting others in harmful ways for their own gain or pleasure, and can be manipulative and deceitful towards other people, achieving this through wit and a facade of superficial charm, or through intimidation and violence. They may display arrogance and think lowly and negatively of others, and lack remorse for their harmful actions."


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder

Fits her 100 percent. Thanks Tortoise

 

[krmh]

While I was looking for something else I came across the previous witness testimony of someone who knew Kit Walsh. She said KW had told her that she lost her hair after she was attacked by an ex and suffered brain damage. KW's counsel said are you sure she hadn't told you her alopecia was because she had breast cancer.

That was her ex husband Kevin but it didn't happen, nor did she have breast cancer nor did she lose her hair because of a bike accident. She lost it through alopecia when her husband left her for another woman

 

[faybradshaw]

That was her ex husband Kevin but it didn't happen, nor did she have breast cancer nor did she lose her hair because of a bike accident. She lost it through alopecia when her husband left her for another woman

Krmh, knowing KW, what are your thoughts on whether she will be able to withstand the cross questioning and get her side of the story across?

 

[krmh]

Krmh, knowing KW, what are your thoughts on whether she will be able to withstand the cross questioning and get her side of the story across?

I don't think she will even get in the stand. Could be wrong though!

 

[Tortoise]

That was her ex husband Kevin but it didn't happen, nor did she have breast cancer nor did she lose her hair because of a bike accident. She lost it through alopecia when her husband left her for another woman

Do you know why these other explanations came out?

 

[Tortoise]

I wonder why KW is on crutches. Has been since her first court appearance whenever that was, Jan or Feb.

And didn't she collapse on videocam and they had to continue without her?

 

[Tortoise]

ONE of the women charged with the murder of 60-year-old businesswoman Sadie Hartley collapsed to the floor when she appeared before a judge for the first time.

Judge Mark Brown decided that the hearing would continue in Walsh's absence and instructed defence barrister Mark Stuart to relay a summary to her.


Prosecutor Francis McEnte said the prosecution would rely on CCTV evidence, Automatic Number Plate Recognition technology, mobile phone pinpointing and forensics.

He said: "There's a broad range of evidence in this case the Crown will rely on.

"It is our case this was a meticulously planned, ruthlessly executed murder."





http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.u...d_of_murder_of_businessman_collapses/?ref=mac

Here it is 22nd Jan.

 

[faybradshaw]

I don't think she will even get in the stand. Could be wrong though![/QUOTE

Does not seem as though she is a confrontational person. Just hope her advocate preps her enough for her to get confidence to get in the stand

 

[jessie]

I really hope she takes the stand. Whether she was manipulated, misled, did or didn't have any involvement she needs to put her side.

 

[Tortoise]

I found this information, following the change in the law in February of this year, concerning joint enterprise -

When approaching cases involving accessory liability, foresight can now act as evidence of intention but it cannot be conclusive of it. Therefore, where a group of people attack someone and one member delivers a fatal blow, each denying that they are the culprit, as the law now stands the prosecution can still adduce evidence that the group may have had foresight that serious injury or death may occur; but the prosecution will need to prove, so that a Jury are sure, that all members of the group actively assisted or encouraged another member to cause serious injury or death.
A person who intentionally encourages or assists the commission of a crime will still be as guilty of it as the person who commits it. Additionally a Jury may be entitled to infer intentional encouragement or assistance from a person’s behaviour, such as knowledge that a person is carrying a weapon. If a person participates in a crime in circumstances which a reasonable person would realise involves a risk of serious harm and death results, they would be liable for manslaughter.

http://www.colletonchambers.co.uk/l...ourt-reverses-the-law-on-accessory-liability/

 

[Tortoise]

I just posted up that I think KW will get manslaughter, but I've changed my mind so deleted it. I think she will get murder as well.

 

[faybradshaw]

I just posted up that I think KW will get manslaughter, but I've changed my mind so deleted it. I think she will get murder as well.

What has made you change your mind?

 

[Tortoise]

I know it's been posted already today but this is a bit fuller -

[FONT=&quot]John McDermott QC, prosecuting, asked the defendant about her reaction on hearing the news of the death of Ms Hartley, whom she referred to as a “troll *****” to friends.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]He continued: “So in the aftermath of Sadie’s death, what did you do on Saturday night within hours of this awful news?”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Williams told the jury she went to Walsh’s home, had a chat, a meal and watched a DVD film with her friend on her bed.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Mr McDermott said: “Do you remember the film?”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Williams replied: “Mamma Mia.”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The prosecutor continued: “The Abba movie. Did you sing along with Kit (Walsh)? ‘Did you hear about Sadie dying? Oh, this one’s a good one, Dancing Queen’ - is that how it went?”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Williams replied: “No.”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Mr McDermott continued: “You’re on the bed with Kit with Mamma Mia. You did not care two hoots what you had done.”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“I had not done anything,” Williams replied.

The prosecutor continued: “The ‘troll *****’ was dead, and it was rejoicing for you, wasn’t it?”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“No, absolutely not,” Williams said.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Mr McDermott said: “The culmination of the perfect murder?”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“Absolutely not,” the defendant said.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Mr McDermott added: “A few hours later the door goes in and you are handcuffed and taken away. What a shock for you.”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“Absolutely shocking,” Williams replied.

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co...ws/sadie-hartley-murder-accused-sang-11712523[/FONT]

 

[Cherwell]

Can I just say that quotes are going wrong because in post 709 a square closing bracket was left off the end of krmh's quote

I don't think she will even get in the stand. Could be wrong though![/QUOTE

Does not seem as though she is a confrontational person. Just hope her advocate preps her enough for her to get confidence to get in the stand

That should have had krmh's quote in a quote box, followed by Fay's comment. When this happens, it disrupts posts every time they are quoted. So please preview and check that your posts look right, before it gets out of hand!

:tyou:

 

[Tortoise]

What has made you change your mind?

It's that line - "a person who intentionally encourages or assists the commission of a crime will still be as guilty of it as the person who commits it."

If KW only thought SW might cause serious harm to Sadie but not death, but the stabbing had led to death, I would say manslaughter. She knew SW was going to commit murder and used the word murder in her diaries.

 

[Tortoise]

The pair of £19.99 boots were bought by Ms Williams from a Deichmann's store at the Cheshire Oaks Designer Outlet in Ellesmere Port two days before Ms Hartley's death.
They were later discovered at the workplace of Ms Williams' co-defendant, Ms Walsh, along with the kitchen knife murder weapon and the stun gun, the court heard.


Ms Williams said Ms Walsh suggested buying the boots, which were later gift-wrapped at Ms Walsh's home, and it was likely she had left them there "by mistake or by accident", Preston Crown Court heard.
Cross-examining Ms Williams, Tony Cross QC, defending Ms Walsh, said: "That is a bare-faced lie. You had them on your feet when you slaughtered the victim."
Ski travel firm worker Ms Williams replied: "I have never wore those boots on my feet or slaughtered the victim."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-36987283

 

[faybradshaw]

The pair of £19.99 boots were bought by Ms Williams from a Deichmann's store at the Cheshire Oaks Designer Outlet in Ellesmere Port two days before Ms Hartley's death.
They were later discovered at the workplace of Ms Williams' co-defendant, Ms Walsh, along with the kitchen knife murder weapon and the stun gun, the court heard.


Ms Williams said Ms Walsh suggested buying the boots, which were later gift-wrapped at Ms Walsh's home, and it was likely she had left them there "by mistake or by accident", Preston Crown Court heard.
Cross-examining Ms Williams, Tony Cross QC, defending Ms Walsh, said: "That is a bare-faced lie. You had them on your feet when you slaughtered the victim."
Ski travel firm worker Ms Williams replied: "I have never wore those boots on my feet or slaughtered the victim."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-36987283

Lied straight-faced!! The audacity...

 

[cottonweaver]

It's such a peculiar collaboration isn't it?

Looking at Walsh's role, who would do anything remotely like this for a friend? It wasn't for love, only one witness assumed the pair had a lesbian relationship ( Ann Riley) , no-one else. We also had this previously from saddler Dodd:

Gordon Cole representing Sarah Williams asks Miss Dodd if Kit Walsh had a “strange obsession with her?Miss Dodd replies: “I think she may been slightly in awe of her.”

Walsh was fully aware of William's desire for IJ and that "she would get him in the end" ( William's words.) It wasn't done for gain. Maybe it wasn't done for friendship's sake either, for Williams at all.

So no money changed hands and indeed wasn't it the other way ? Walsh had already loaned or given Willliams over £40k towards a house purchase. ( No idea if Walsh received £ from William's buy to lets or what the repayment arrangements were, if any.)
We assume Walsh must be a bit "simple" but we haven't heard any evidence of that being true, just a contested point about poor memory and obsessive diary records.

Walsh was exploited by the "criminal mastermind" Williams or is it just that Walsh is simply the "crazier" of the two?
Walsh herself had nothing concrete to gain, except, as her diaries say, the thrill,"buzzing" in fact, of being "instrumental in a murder plot" or some other vicarious thrill, wanting to be involved in something lethal/sadistic but as long as she "wasn't at the sharp end." Her diary seems to show that she gets off on all the planning yet "I have no moral qualms, just a serious don’t let us get caught twinge”

Williams seems to be full of rage, disguised. She is such a brazen, treacherous, calculating character on the stand that maybe the jury do have some sympathy for Kit just at the moment- until she herself testifies.

However look at the alopecia excuse on it's own. What kind pf person uses that excuse ?

Kate Hodgenia, had known Kit Walsh since she was a teenager through her love of horses. She says Kit told her she had told her she begun to lose her hair after suffering brain damage after being beaten up by her ex-partner. Tony Cross, defending Walsh, however asks Miss Hodgenia if she did in fact tell her that and didn’t instead say it was due to her suffering from breast cancer. She says no.

BIB Not only is it bizarre and medically implausible but she isn't lying due to embarrassment, Walsh is actually making the story even more dramatic and herself more of a victim.

Now as per the last page of the thread, we are reminded that she collapsed in court, resorted to crutches. Maybe this is also Walsh just playing the victim?

IDK, just thinking out loud. Witness Dodd also said after Sarah was arrested

Kit was “babbling” and “insinuated she may have been duped or fooled” into doing something to help Sarah.

Is that just a handy cover, dimishing her own role to Dodd due to panic about also being found out?

Separate but related...........
regarding early police evidence, I wonder who tore the pages out and why:

DC Midgley says some pages in the diaries had been ripped out and others appeared to have been rubbed out and written over.

considering the rest of the entries were so damning anyway.

Bear in mind Dodd also said

She says during her conversation with Kit after Sarah’s arrest Kit told her that Sarah had told her not write certain things in her diary as if “they weren’t in the diary they hadn’t happened.”

and Riley said

Mrs Riley says Kit Walsh once told her she was worried Sarah Williams might move, or tamper with her diaries.She says Kit said she “would write everything down unless Sarah told her not to.”

Why was Walsh even mentioning diaries to Riley? She already distrusted Williams? ( Unfortunately i couldn't find a definitive date for when that conversation occurred. It's not clear that it was part of the 18th jan conversation, may be well before sadie's murder.)

 

[Alyce]

Ah, I have written a long post, twice, and lost it, twice !

here goes, third time lucky.

In essence, I was saying, Williams is straightforward in that her actions and words match completely with the character assessments of her given by witnesses and Williams own testimony ( so far ) on the stand. She fits the classic psycopath model.

Walsh on the other hand is something of a contradiction. So far, she has been presented as a mild mannered, gentle, peace loving character who seems to be somewhat in the background, dominated by Williams strong character and willing to do things to please or assist her stronger, more outgoing friend.

But contrast this with her biker image, her tattoos and her Viking re enactment events. None of those things are usually matched with a gentle,quiet, retiring person.
Add in her diary comments about the thrill of plotting a murder and having no qualms of taking the life of someone simply because this someone is getting in the way of her friend's happiness - plus her almost childish excitement at the thought of getting a week end in Germany out of a murder plan and this paints a very different outlook to me.

So is she really this quiet, self effacing person, who gets her excitement in life from riding on the coat tails of her more outgoing pal or is there something darker in her character that she is working furiously to keep hidden. The lie about the alopecia gives another insight into a person who tries to make herself appear more relevant to others by going down the victim route and thereby, in her eyes, enhancing her status in life.

Whichever character is the real Walsh I do believe she was fully aware that the plot she and Williams created was going to end with the murder of Sadie and for that I think she should be found guilty of murder, not a lesser charge.


eta ...this line Walsh keeps bringing up about thinking she was in an episode of Hunted. I have never watched the programme, but have pals who do and as far as I know, nobody gets murdered in the series !! so I think her excuse is a non starter.